JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This election petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Harmohinder Singh Pradhan challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, from Raikot Assembly Constituency, to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, for which the polling was held on 13.2.2002 and the result was declared on 24.2.2002 and also for holding respondent No. 1, Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, having committed corrupt practice, with a further prayer that the petitioner namely Harmohinder Singh Pradhan, be declared to have been duly elected from the aforesaid Raikot Assembly Constituency. The petitioner has also sought direction for holding fresh election to the Raikot Assembly Constituency, as the same had not been held in accordance with the voters list of 1999, which was revised in 2001 and then in 2002. 2. In the election petition it was alleged by the petitioner that he had contested the general election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Raikot Assembly Constituency, district Ludhiana. It was alleged that the Election Commission of India, had issued the election programme for election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, according to which the last date for filing nominations was 23.1.2002, scrutiny of nominations was to be held on 24.1.2002, withdrawal of nominations could take place upto 28.1.2002, the polling was to be held on 13.2.2002 and the counting of votes was to take place on 24.2.2002. It was alleged that in the previous assembly elections held in 1997, the petitioner had contested the election as a candidate of Indian National Congress and was declared elected, defeating respondent No. 1 in the said election. It was alleged that in the present election, the petitioner and others had filed nomination papers for the Raikot Assembly Constituency, and after scrutiny and withdrawal of the nomination papers, only the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5 were left to contest the election to the Raikot Assembly Constituency. It was alleged that the polling was held on 13.2.2002, through electronic voting machines and the counting was held on 24.2.2002 and on the same day the results were declared, vide which respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured 44388 votes whereas the petitioner was shown to have secured 37989 votes. 3. It was alleged that the polling was held on 13.2.2002, through electronic voting machines and the counting was held on 24.2.2002 and on the same day the results were declared, vide which respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured 44388 votes whereas the petitioner was shown to have secured 37989 votes. 3. In the election petition, it was alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 indulged in corrupt practices, an enshrined in Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act). It was alleged that in the meeting held on 1.2.2002, at Village Lakha, respondent No. 1 appealed to the people, particularly the followers of Sant Muni Mahesh Ji 108, Bore Wale, to vote in his favour and on the basis of the appeal made by the said religious leaders, using their respective religious symbols. It was alleged that this fact was told to the petitioner on the next date i.e. 2.2.2002, by Nahar Singh and Sh. Baldev Singh, who were present in the said meeting. It was further alleged that a similar appeal was again made on 3.2.2002, at Village Manuke in the name of Sh. Karnail Singh, Mukh Sewadar, Gaushala Badni and it was announced publicly by respondent No. 1 that Shri Karnail Singh had appealed the general public to cast their vote in his favour. It was alleged that said Sh. Karnail Singh is a religious leader and is having vast following. It was further alleged that an appeal from such a religious leader has a very deep impact and even the staunch followers of the petitioner were under religious obligation to follow the appeal of their religious head. It was alleged that the petitioner was informed about this appeal by Niranjan Singh and Sh. Hardayal Singh, who had attended the said meeting. It was alleged that they had also informed the petitioner that the said appeal had a very far reaching impact and the followers of Sh. Karnail Singh were going to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1, which would materially affect the election prospects of the petitioner, which amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. Karnail Singh were going to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1, which would materially affect the election prospects of the petitioner, which amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was further alleged that the said appeal made on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 by respondent No. 1 in the name of Sant Muni Mahesh Ji, was later on got published at his instance under the name of Sh. Karnail Singh, Mukh Sewadar, Gaushala Badni, calling upon the people to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1. It was alleged that the said publication was made in daily Jagbani, a newspaper published from Jalandhar, in the issue dated 5.2.2002, copy Exhibit P1 and translated copy Ex. P1/T. It was further alleged that the appeal made by respondent No. 1 publicly on 2.2.2002 in the name of religion, using the religious symbols and thereafter publishing the said appeal in the newspaper on 5.2.2002, amounted to corrupt practice as defined in Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, as the appeal was made in the name of religion, using religious symbols. It was alleged that the said appeal was made to the public for casting their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and it meant not to vote for the petitioner. 4. It was further alleged in the election petition that Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, father of respondent No. 1, alongwith respondent No. 1 in the meetings held on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002, had announced that all the religious leaders of the area have appealed to the public to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and as such the people should vote in accordance with the wishes of the said leaders, under whose religion/symbols said people were followers. It was alleged that at Village Bhaini Bringa, Dalbir Singh had attended the meeting and had informed the petitioner about the same, whereas Darshan Singh had informed the petitioner about the meeting held at Raikot, whereas Avtar Singh had informed the petitioner about the meeting held at Village Burj Hari Singh. It was alleged that the above named persons had informed the petitioner about those meetings on 10.2.2002. It was alleged that the above named persons had informed the petitioner about those meetings on 10.2.2002. It was alleged that those persons had informed the petitioner that Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi had specifically named various religious leaders, including Sant Mahesh Muni Ji Borewale, Sant Balbir Singh, Lamman Jattpura, Sant Zora Singh, Badni Kalan, Nanaksar Thath, Sant Niranjan Singh Ji Vaid, Sant Avtar Singh, Badni Kalan, Sant Bir Singh, Madoke, Member, SGPC, Sant Atma Singh, Dhurkot, Member SGPC and Sant Bharpoor Singh, Barmi Wale. It was alleged that said Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi had called upon the people to cast their votes in furtherance to the wishes of their respective leaders and to keep their symbols high by letting his son Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, to win from Raikot Assembly Constituency. It was alleged that Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, himself was the President of Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, the supreme body of the Sikhs and thus corrupt practice, as defined under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, had been committed. It was further alleged that the aforesaid appeal was got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit, a Punjabi newspaper, published from Jalandhar, in the issue dated 12.2.2002, copy Annexure P2 and its translated copy Annexure P-2/T. It was alleged that the said appeal was issued by various religious leaders, under their symbols, to the public and particularly to their followers for casting their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and this amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. 5. It was further alleged in the election petition that the above appeals made by respondent No. 1 and his father in the name of religion and religious leaders using their symbols and the subsequent publication in newspapers amounted to corrupt practice as envisaged under the provisions of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was further alleged that extension of the names of the above religious leaders, would be their respective symbols, such as "Borewale", "Badni Kalan", "Nanaksar Thath" and "Lamman Jattpura". It was alleged that all these leaders are just like God for their followers and a word from their mouth is treated as a direction for the followers. It was further alleged that extension of the names of the above religious leaders, would be their respective symbols, such as "Borewale", "Badni Kalan", "Nanaksar Thath" and "Lamman Jattpura". It was alleged that all these leaders are just like God for their followers and a word from their mouth is treated as a direction for the followers. It was alleged that under these circumstances when a specific appeal is made in their name and subsequently the same is published in newspapers, the followers have no choice but to obey their command and as such in the constituency of the petitioner, the people voted for respondent No. 1 even though they wanted to vote for the petitioner, had there been no such appeal by those religious leaders under their symbols. It was alleged that this action had materially affected the result of the election against the petitioner. It was alleged that the last appeal was got published on the day prior to the polling, i.e. on 12.2.2002, when the campaigning had ended and the said publication, which was published at the instance of respondent No. 1 and with his consent, was managed by him (respondent No. 1). It was alleged that the election had been materially affected due to the above appeal. It was alleged that irregularity and illegality had been committed during the election process by respondent No. 1 to the prejudice of the petitioner bring a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was further alleged that the petitioner was all set to win the election, considering the past record, but due to the appeal in the name of religion by the religious leaders, using their symbols, the outcome of the result changed and the petitioner lost the election. It was alleged that this amounted to corrupt practice as per Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act and the election of respondent No. 1 was liable to be set aside and consequently the petitioner be declared to have been elected from the Raikot Assembly Constituency. 6. It was further alleged that the electoral rolls are prepared as prescribed under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act). It was alleged that procedure is set out therein which also lays down the procedure for revision of the electoral rolls. 6. It was further alleged that the electoral rolls are prepared as prescribed under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act). It was alleged that procedure is set out therein which also lays down the procedure for revision of the electoral rolls. It was alleged that under Sub-Section (2), electoral roll is to be revised before each general election. It was alleged that under the provisions of the 1950 Act, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the 1960 Rules) had been framed. It was alleged that Rule 22 of the said Rules provides for the final publication of the roll and Rule 25 provides for revision of rolls. It was alleged that the election to Raikot assembly Constituency, were held on the basis of the electoral rolls prepared in 1999 alongwith which two supplementary rolls Viz. supplementary voters list of 2001 and 2002 were tagged. It was alleged that the holding of the election on the basis of this electoral roll having two supplementary lists tagged with it, was not sustainable as the revision of rolls in the year 2001 was of intensive nature and as such, under the provisions of Rule 25(2), of the 1960 Rules, a fresh electoral roll had to be published, meaning thereby that after the amendments made in the electoral roll of 1999, during the revision of 2001, a fresh electoral roll was to be published incorporating all the amendments and on such publication, the electoral roll of 1999 would cease to operate. It was alleged that the present election, however, had been held in utter violation of the provisions of the 1950 Act and the rules framed thereunder and as such the election was null and void and accordingly fresh elections be directed to be held. It was accordingly prayed that election of respondent No. 1 namely Ranjeet Singh Talwandi be declared null and void and set aside and that the petitioner be declared as duly elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Raikot Assembly Constituency and that respondent No. 1 be held guilty of having committed corrupt practice under Section 123 of the 1951 Act and be debarred from contesting the elections for 6 years under Section 8-A of the said Act. It was further prayed that fresh election be directed to be held as the elections were held in violation of Section 21 of the 1950 Act read with Rules 22 and 25 of the 1960 Rules. 7. The election petition was contested by the respondent No. 1, namely Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, by filing written statement, taking up various preliminary objections. It was alleged that the contents of paras 7 to 19 of the election petition were totally vague and deficient in material facts and were not in consonance with the provisions of section 83(1)(b) of the 1951 Act and as such these paragraphs were liable to be deleted from the pleadings. It was further alleged that after the deletion of these paragraphs from the pleadings, no cause of action will be left and the petition would be liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was alleged that the contents of paras 16 to 19 did not show any cause of action as finality of electoral rolls cannot be challenged by way of the election petition and similarly the irregularities in the preparation of electoral roll could not be challenged by way of election petition, as there is no ground provided under Section 100 of the 1951 Act for challenging the electoral roll and as such these paragraphs did not disclose any cause of action and are liable to be struck off from the pleadings. On merits, it was alleged that answering respondent No. 1 polled 44,338 votes whereas the election petitioner had polled 37,989 valid votes. It was denied that the answering respondent had indulged/engaged in corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was denied that on 1.2.2002, answering respondent had held any meeting in Village Lakha and had appealed to the people including the followers of Sant Muni Mahesh Ji 108, Bore Wale, to vote in his favour or on the basis of the appeal made by the said religious leaders using their respective religious symbols, as alleged. It was denied that any appeal was made by Sant Muni Mahesh Ji 108, in favour of answering respondent. It was further alleged that there was no allegation that the alleged appeal was made by Sant Muni Mahesh Ji, with the consent of the answering respondent. It was denied that any appeal was made by Sant Muni Mahesh Ji 108, in favour of answering respondent. It was further alleged that there was no allegation that the alleged appeal was made by Sant Muni Mahesh Ji, with the consent of the answering respondent. It was alleged that the contents of para 7 of the petition were vague and deficient in material facts and not in consonance with the provisions of Section 83(1)(b) of the 1951 Act and as such this para is liable to be struck off from the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further denied that on 3.2.2002 or on any other date, the answering respondent had made any speech in Village Manuke in the name of Sh. Karnail Singh, Mukh Sewadar, Gaushala Badni or that the answering respondent had publicly stated that Sh. Karnail Singh had appealed to the general public to cast their votes in favour of the answering respondent or that Sh. Karnail Singh was having vast following in the constituency or that the appeal of the said leader had any impact in the constituency. It was alleged that the contents of the said speech had not been given and the said speech could not be treated as speech in the name of religion. It was further alleged that the contents of para 8 were vague and deficient in material facts and particulars as required under Section 83(1)(b) of the 1951 Act and liable to be struck off from the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It was denied that the alleged speech had far reaching impact or that followers of Sh. Karnail Singh were under religious obligation to cast their votes in favour of the answering respondent. It was also denied that said speech had materially affected the election prospects of the petitioner or that alleged speech amounted to any corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was alleged that in fact no such meeting had taken place. It was denied that any appeal was made by answering respondent on 1.2.2002 or 3.2.2002 or on any other date in the name of Sant Muni Mahesh Ji, or that the same was got published at the instance of the answering respondent in the name of Sh. It was alleged that in fact no such meeting had taken place. It was denied that any appeal was made by answering respondent on 1.2.2002 or 3.2.2002 or on any other date in the name of Sant Muni Mahesh Ji, or that the same was got published at the instance of the answering respondent in the name of Sh. Karnail Singh, Mukh Sewadar, calling upon voters to cast their votes in favour of the answering respondent. It was alleged that the answering respondent had nothing to do with the publication of the said news item Annexure P-1 and that the said news item might have been got published by the persons of their own without the knowledge/consent of the answering respondent. It was further alleged that contents of para 9 of the petition are vague and deficient in material facts and particulars as required under Section 83(1)(b) of the 1951 Act, and the paragraph was liable to be struck off under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It was further alleged that the alleged speech does not fall within the purview of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was denied that the answering respondent had made any appeal on 2.2.2002 or on any other date in the name of religion, using religious symbols. It was denied that the appeal was got published by the answering respondent in newspaper on 5.2.2002. It was alleged that in fact, no such appeal was got published by the answering respondent in the newspaper on 5.2.2002. It was further denied that the alleged appeal and the publication of the same amounted to corrupt practice as defined under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was denied that the alleged appeal was made in the name of religion, using religious symbols. It was alleged that Shiromani Akali Dal is using the symbol of Scales since long and as such this Symbol could not be treated as a religious symbol. It was denied that any appeal was made to the voters in the name of religion to cast their votes in favour of the answering respondent and not in favour of the petitioner. 8. It was further alleged that contents of para 10 of the petition were vague and deficient in material facts as required under Section 23(1)(b) of the 1951 Act and this para was liable to be struck off. 8. It was further alleged that contents of para 10 of the petition were vague and deficient in material facts as required under Section 23(1)(b) of the 1951 Act and this para was liable to be struck off. It was denied that Shri Jagdev Singh Talwandi, father of the answering respondent, alongwith answering respondent had held any public meetings on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002 in which it was announced that all religious leaders of the area had appealed to the public to cast their votes in favour of the answering respondent or that people should vote in accordance with the wishes of the said religious leaders under whose religion/symbol those people were the followers. It was denied that any such meeting was held in various villages named in this paragraph. It was also denied that Sardar Jagdev Singh Talwandi had specifically named the religious leaders named in this paragraph or that Sarder Jagdev Singh Talwandi or the answering respondent had asked the people to cast their votes in furtherance of the wishes of their respective leaders and to keep their symbols high by letting his son to win election from the said constituency. It was alleged that merely because Sardar Jagdev Singh Talwandi was president of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee did not amount to corrupt practice and that no such speech was made by him. It was denied that the alleged corrupt practice had been committed an envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was alleged that the contents of para 11 of the petition are vague and deficient in material facts and particulars as required under Section 83(1)(b) of the 1951 Act and as such this paragraph is liable to be struck off. It was alleged that Sardev Singh Jagdev Singh Talwandi was not the election agent of the answering respondent and that he remained as President of the Akali Dal and is a senior political leader of Shiromani Akali Dal and was elected President of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, which is statutory body, created under the Sikh Gurdwara Act and manages the gurudwaras. It was alleged that merely because Sardar Jagdev Singh Talwandi was President of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, will not make the speech as the speech made by Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee or by the religious leader in the name of religion. It was alleged that merely because Sardar Jagdev Singh Talwandi was President of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, will not make the speech as the speech made by Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee or by the religious leader in the name of religion. It was alleged that Sardar Jagdev Singh Talwandi was not the President of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee at the time when the election was held. It was further alleged that even if the alleged speech was made by him, the same was without the consent of the answering respondent and is not a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was denied that the answering respondent got the alleged appeal published in the daily Ajit, a Punjabi newspaper. It was alleged that in fact the answering respondent had nothing to do with the alleged appeal and the publication of the same. It was alleged that the alleged speech, if any, was published without the consent and knowledge of the answering respondent and that the alleged speech is not a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was denied that there was any extension of the names of the religious leaders and their respective symbols as alleged. It was also denied that these leaders were like God for their followers or that a word from their mouth is treated as a direction for their followers. It was denied that any speech was made by the answering respondent or that he got the speech published in the newspapers. It was denied that people voted for answering respondent because of the alleged appeal, even though they wanted to vote for the petitioner. It was denied that this action had materially affected the result of the election against the petitioner. It was denied that the petitioner lost the election due to the appeal in the name of religion by the religious leaders, using their symbols as alleged. It was alleged that in fact, the petitioner did nothing for the constituency and therefore, the people voted him out in the election. 9. It was further alleged in the written statement that the elections were rightly held on the basis of the main electoral rolls of the year 1999 with supplementary rolls pertaining to the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. 9. It was further alleged in the written statement that the elections were rightly held on the basis of the main electoral rolls of the year 1999 with supplementary rolls pertaining to the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. It was alleged that Section 21 of the 1950 Act did not provide that before each general elections, electoral roll has to be revised. On the other hand, it is provided that the electoral rolls are to be revised in the manner prescribed by reference to qualifying date before each general election. It is further provided that if the electoral roll is not revised as aforesaid, the validity or continued operation of the said electoral roll would not be affected. It is further provided that electoral rolls for the constituency which were in force shall continue to be in force till the completion of special revision, so directed and that if the electoral rolls is not revised, the validity or continued process of the electoral roll shall not be affected. It was further alleged that the election was rightly held on the basis of electoral rolls pertaining to the year 1999 with amendments as on 7.1.2002, as per directions of the Election Commission of India and the petitioner could not challenge the same. It was alleged that the 1950 Act and the rules framed thereunder do not provide for preparation of fresh electoral roll before each general election, as alleged. It was further alleged that even if there was any violation of any rule, nothing has been mentioned as to how much it materially affected the election. It was further alleged that the violation of 1950 Act and the rules framed thereunder, could not be challenged by way of this petition. It was denied that the election had been held in violation of the 1950 Act and the rules framed thereunder. It was alleged that the alleged irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls and finality of electoral roll cannot be challenged in the election petition. It was accordingly prayed that the election petition be dismissed. 10. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by the returned candidate (respondent No. 1). It was alleged that the petitioner had made specific allegations and it discloses all material facts which amount to commission of corrupt practice under the provisions of Section 123 of the 1951 Act. It was accordingly prayed that the election petition be dismissed. 10. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by the returned candidate (respondent No. 1). It was alleged that the petitioner had made specific allegations and it discloses all material facts which amount to commission of corrupt practice under the provisions of Section 123 of the 1951 Act. It was denied that the contents of paras 7 to 19 are totally vague and deficient in material facts and not in consonance with the provisions of section 83(1)(b) of the 1951 Act. It was alleged that since the averments made in the petition were specific, paragraphs 7 to 19 were not liable to be deleted from the pleadings. It was further alleged that holding of election on the basis of electoral roll, which was non-est in the eyes of law, was illegal and therefore, election held on the basis of said voters list was null and void. The other allegations made in the written statement were also controverted, whereas the allegations made in the petition were reiterated and it was prayed that the election petition be allowed as prayed for. 11. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by me on 29.10.2002 :- "1. Whether respondent No. 1 has committed corrupt practices, as alleged in paragraphs 7 to 15 of the petition and if so, to what effect ? OPP 2. Whether the election of Raikot Assembly Constituency was held on defective electoral rolls, as alleged ? If so, to what effect ? OPP 3. Whether paras 7 to 19 are vague and deficient in material facts and are liable to be struck off from the pleadings ? If so to what effect ? OPR 4. Whether the finality of electoral roll cannot be challenged in the election petition and as such, paras 16 to 19 do not disclose cause of action ? OPR 5. Relief". After the framing of the issues, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted before me that issue Nos. 3 and 4 may be treated as preliminary issues. It was submitted that he was not to produce any evidence in respect of those issues. Learned counsel for the petitioner also had no objection to the same. Accordingly, it was directed that issues 3 and 4, referred to above, shall be treated as preliminary issues. 3 and 4 may be treated as preliminary issues. It was submitted that he was not to produce any evidence in respect of those issues. Learned counsel for the petitioner also had no objection to the same. Accordingly, it was directed that issues 3 and 4, referred to above, shall be treated as preliminary issues. Thereafter, the case was fixed for argumetns on preliminary issues. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are as under :- Issue No. 3 : 13. In order to appreciate this issue, the provisions of section 123(3) of the 1951 Act may be noticed :- "123. Corrupt practices. -- The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act :- (1) xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx (2) xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate : Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause." 14. Annexure P-1/T is the English translation of the appeal Annexure P-1 published in Gurmukhi in the newspaper Daily Jag Bani, Jalandhar dated 5.2.2002 and it reads as under :- "Appeal Appeal is made to the intellectual voters of Raikot Assembly Constituency to vote and elect the candidate of Shiromai Akali Dal - BJP-BSP S. Ranjeet Singh Talwandi son of the former President, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee-Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi for all round development of the area and spearheading the religious works. Issued by : Karnail Singh, Head Sewadar Gaushala, Badhni, Bahadur Singh Manuke, Jagdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch Manuke, Zora Singh Manuke, Himmat Singh Manuke, Chamkaur Singh, Nek Singh Manuke, Gaushala Committee Hathoor and people of the area." This appeal published in the aforesaid newspaper was having the photograph of Param Poojnek Sant Mahesh Maniji 108, Bore Wale. 15. Annexure P-2/T is the English translation of the appeal Annexure P-2, published in Gurmukhi in newspaper Daily Ajit, Jalandhar, dated 12.2.2002 and it reads as under :- "Appeal CAST YOUR PRECIOUS VOTE AND ELECT S. RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI THE EDUCATED, HONEST, GUARDIAN OF RIGHTS AND TRUTH AND PEOPLE FRIENDLY CANDIDATE OF SHIROMANI AKALI DAL (BADAL), BJP-BSP FROM RAIKOT ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY. Appeal by :- Sant Mahesh Muniji Bore Wale, Sant Balbir Singh, Lamman Jattpura, Sant Zora Singh Badhni Kala Nanaksar Thath, Sant Niranjan Singh Vaid, Sant Avtar Singh Badhni Kala, Sant Bir Singh Madoke, Member SGPC, Sant Atma Singh Dhurkot, Member SGPC, Sant Bharpoor Singh Barmi Wale, Sant Amrik Singh Rajoana." This appeal published in the aforesaid newspaper was having the photographs of S. Parkash Singh Badal, the then Chief Minister, Punjab, Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, former President, Shiromani Committee and elected candidate Ranjeet Singh Talwandi (respondent No. 1) and also contained the photograph of the election symbol namely "Scales". 16. In paras 7 and 8 of the petition, it was alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had indulged in corrupt practices as enshrined in Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, inasmuch as respondent No. 1 had made appeal in the name of religion and religious symbols on 1.2.2002 at Village Lakha and on 3.2.2002 at Village Manuke. In para 9 of the election petition, it was alleged that the same appeal made on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 by respondent No. 1 was later on got published at his instance in the daily Jagbani in the issue dated 5.2.2002, copy Annexure P1 and translated copy Annexure P1/T. It was further alleged in para 10 of the petition that the said appeal which was published in the newspaper on 5.2.2002, amounted to corrupt practice, as defined under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, as appeal was made in the name of religion using religious symbols. Furthermore, in para 11 of the election petition, it was alleged that in several public meetings held on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002, Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi (father of respondent No. 1) alongwith respondent No. 1 had made appeal in the name of religion using religious symbols. In para 12 of the petition, it was alleged that said appeal was got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit in the issue dated 12.2.2002, copy Annexure P2 and translated copy Annexure P2/T. It was alleged that the said appeal was issued by various religious leaders under their symbols to the public, particularly to their followers, for casting their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and the same is a corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was alleged that the appeal made in the name of religious leaders was like a command to their followers and that this had materially affected the result of the election against the petitioner. Thus, from the abovesaid allegations made in the petition, it would be clear that whatever appeal was made by respondent No. 1 on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 was later on got published at his instance in the daily Jagbani dated 5.2.2002. Similarly, whatever appeal was made by respondent No. 1 and his father Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002 was got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit on 12.2.2002. Under these circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the appeal allegedly made by respondent No. 1 on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 and got published in daily Jagbani, on 5.2.2002, translated copy Annexure P1/T and the appeal made by respondent No. 1 and his father Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002 and got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit on 12.2.2002, translated copy Annexure P2/T, amounted to corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. 17. 17. As referred to above, under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act an appeal made by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent shall be a corrupt practice if the said appeal is to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate. As per the allegations made in the election petition, respondent No. 1 had appealed to the people, particularly the followers of Sant Muni Mahesh Ji 108 Bore Wale, on 1.2.2002 at Village Lakha to vote in his favour on the basis of appeal made by the said religious leaders using their respective religious symbols and that similar appeal was again made on 3.2.2002 at Village Manuke in the name of Sh. Karnail Singh, Mukh Sewadar, Gaushala Badni and it was announced publicly by respondent No. 1 that Sh. Karnail Singh had appealed to the general public to cast their votes in his favour and that said Karnail Singh is a religious leader. Similarly, the appeal made on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 was got published by respondent No. 1 in the daily Jagbani, on 5.2.2002, translated copy Annexure P1/T, wherein it was mentioned that appeal was being made to the intellectual voters of Raikot Assembly constituency to vote and elect respondent No. 1, Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, son of former President Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi and candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal-BJP-BSP, for all round development of the area and spearheading the religious works. This appeal was issued by S. Karnail Singh, Head Sewadar Gaushala, Badhni, Bahadur Singh Manuke, Jagdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch Manuke, Zora Singh Manuke, Himmat Singh Manuke, Chamkaur Singh, Nek Singh Manuke, Gaushala Committee Hathoor and people of the area. The said appeal published in the said newspaper was also having the photograph of Sant Mahesh Muniji 108 Bore Wale. This appeal was issued by S. Karnail Singh, Head Sewadar Gaushala, Badhni, Bahadur Singh Manuke, Jagdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch Manuke, Zora Singh Manuke, Himmat Singh Manuke, Chamkaur Singh, Nek Singh Manuke, Gaushala Committee Hathoor and people of the area. The said appeal published in the said newspaper was also having the photograph of Sant Mahesh Muniji 108 Bore Wale. Similarly, in the election petition it was also alleged that on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002, respondent No. 1 and his father Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi in several public meetings had announced that all the religious leaders of the area had appealed to the public to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and as such people should vote in accordance with the wishes of the said leaders under whose religion/symbols they (people) were followers. It was further alleged that Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi had specifically named all the religious leaders including Sant Mahesh Muni Ji Borewale, Sant Balbir Singh, Lamman Jattpura, Sant Zora Singh Badhni Kalan, Nanaksar Thath, Sant Niranjan Singh Ji Vaid, Sant Avtar Singh, Badni Kalan, Sant Bir Singh, Madoke, Member SGPC, Sant Atma Singh, Dhurkot, Member SGPC and Sant Bharpoor Singh, Barmi Wale. The appeal made on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002 was later on got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit, on 12.2.2002, translated copy Annexure P2/T. In the said appeal published in the said newspaper, it was alleged that the people should cast their precious votes and elect respondent No. 1, Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, the educated, honest, guardian of rights and truth and people friendly candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), BJP-BSP from Raikot Assembly constituency. The said appeal published in the said newspaper was made by Sant Mahesh Muniji Bore Wale, Sant Balbir Singh, Lamman Jattpura, Sant Zora Singh Badhni Kala Nanaksar Thath, Sant Niranjan Singh Valid, Sant Avtar Singh Badhni Kala, Sant Bir Singh Madoke, Member SGPC, Sant Atma Singh Dhurkot, Member SGPC, Sant Bharpoor Singh Barmi Wale, Sant Amrik Singh Rajoana. This appeal was having photographs of Sardar Parkash Singh Badal, the then Chief Minister, Punjab, Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, former President Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and respondent No. 1, Ranjeet Singh Talwandi. It also contained the photograph of his election symbol, namely "Scales". 18. This appeal was having photographs of Sardar Parkash Singh Badal, the then Chief Minister, Punjab, Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, former President Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and respondent No. 1, Ranjeet Singh Talwandi. It also contained the photograph of his election symbol, namely "Scales". 18. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 (returned candidate) submitted before me that even if the allegations made in the election petition are taken as correct at this stage, even then the election petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. It was alleged that the various appeals made on 1.2.2002, 3.2.2002, 8.2.2002, and 9.2.2002 and the publication thereof in the two newspapers dated 5.2.2002 and 12.2.2002, did not amount to corrupt practice, as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act and as such the election of respondent No. 1 could not be set aside on the ground of said corrupt practice and the election petition was liable to be dismissed, at this stage itself. Reliance was placed on various judgments which shall be dealt with subsequently. 19. On the other hand, it was submitted before me by the learned counsel for the election petitioner that the aforesaid appeal made by respondent No. 1 on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 and the appeal made by respondent No. 1 and his father Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002, referred to above and got published in the newspapers, on 5.2.2002 and 12.2.2002, translated copies Annexures P1/T and P2/T, amounted to appeal in the name of religion and religious symbols as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act and as such election of respondent No. 1 was liable to be set aside on the ground that he had committed the aforesaid corrupt practice. It was further submitted that no case for dismissing the election petition at this stage was made out. Reliance was placed on various judgments which shall be dealt with subsequently. 20. In Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and others, AIR 1996 SC 1113, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court, while considering Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, that there can be no doubt that the word "his" used in sub-section (3) must have significance and it cannot be ignored or equated with the word "any" to bring within the net of sub-section (3) any appeal in which there is any reference to religion. It was further held that the religion forming the basis of the appeal to vote or refrain from voting for any person, must be of that candidate for whom the appeal to vote or refrain from voting is made. It was further held that this was clear from the plain language of sub-section (3) of this is the only manner in which the word "his" used therein can be construed. It was further held that when the appeal is to vote on the ground of "his" religion for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate, that appeal is made on the basis of the religion of the candidate for whom votes are solicited. On the other hand when the appeal is to refrain from voting for any person on the ground of "his" religion for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate, that the appeal is based on the religion of the candidate whose election is sought to be prejudicially affected. It was further held that the first is a positive appeal and the second a negative appeal and there is no ambiguity in sub-section (3) and it clearly indicates the particular religion on the basis of which an appeal to vote or refrain from voting for any person is prohibited under sub-section (3). In Randhir Singh v. Ravi Inder Singh, AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 45, it was held by this Court that where allegation of corrupt practice of appeal to religious sentiments against the elected candidate was made on the basis that the elected candidate was set up by the Committee constituted by Akal Takhat (religious temple) and the voters cast their votes under fear of moral displeasure of Gurus in consequence of a "hukumnama" issued by the Takhat to the Sikhs to vote for the candidate, as he was a Sikh, the allegation would fail when neither the hukumnama nor the contents were produced by the petitioner even though it was true that the candidate was set up by the Committee. 21. 21. In S. Harcharan Singh v. S. Sajjan Singh and others, AIR 1985 SC 236, it was held that the Honble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, that it would not be an appeal to religion if a candidate is put up by saying "vote for him" because he is good Sikh or he is a good Christian or he is a good Muslim, but it would be an appeal to religion if it is publicised that not to vote for him would be against Sikh religion or against Christian religion or against Hindu religion or to vote for the other candidate would be an act against a particular religion. It was further held that it is the total effect of such an appeal that has to be borne in mind in deciding whether there was an appeal to religion as such or not and, therefore, in each case, the substance of the matter has to be judged. It was further held that the religious leaders have right freely to express their opinion on the comparative merits of the contesting candidates and to canvass for such of them as they considered worthy of the confidence of the electorate (reference was made to Ram Dial v. Sant Lal, AIR 1959 SC 519). It was further held that in Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, AIR 1965 SC 141, it was observed that in considering as to whether a particular appeal made by a candidate falls within the mischief of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, the courts should not be astute to read in the words used in the appeal anything more than what can be attributed to them on their fair and reasonable construction. 22. In Ram Dial v. Sant Lal and others, AIR 1959 SC 519, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that a religious leader has a right to exercise his influence in favour of any particular candidate by voting for him and by canvassing votes of others for him. It was further held that he has a right to express his opinion on the individual merits of the candidate. It was further held that he has a right to express his opinion on the individual merits of the candidate. It was further held that such a course of conduct on his part, will only be a use of his great influence amongst a particular section of the voters in the constituency, but it will amount to an abuse of his great influence if the words he uses in a document, or utters in his speeches, leave no choice to the persons addressed by him, in the exercise of their electoral rights, inasmuch as where a religious leader practically leaves no free choice to the electors, not only by issuing in writing the hukam or farman, but also by his speeches, to the effect that they must vote for the candidate, implying that disobedience of his mandate would carry divine displeasure or spiritual censure, the case is clearly brought within the purview fo the second paragraph of the proviso to Section 123(2) of the 1951 Act. However, the later observations made by the Honble Supreme Court would have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the present case petitioner is not claiming corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of 1951 Act but is claiming corrupt practice only under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. 23. In Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta and others, AIR 1965 SC 183, it was held by a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, that clause (3) of section 123 falls into two parts (i) an appeal by a candidate, his agents or by other persons with the consent of the candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language and (ii) use of or appeal to religious symbols, national emblems for the furtherance of prospects of the election of the candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate. It was further held that there is no reference in the second part to the person by whom the use of, or appeal to religion or national symbols such as national flag or national emblem may be made, if such use of or appeal to religion has been made to further the prospects of the candidate or to prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate, but it is implicit in Section 123(3) having regard to the terms of Section 100, that the use of or appeal to the national or religious symbols must be made by the candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent before it can be regarded as a ground for declaring the election void. The Honble Supreme Court was considering the question as to whether "Om" flag which is merely a pennant on which is printed the word "Om" could be called as religious symbol within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. It was held that the word "Om" is regarded as having high spiritual or mystical efficacy; it is used at the commencement of the recitations of religious prayers. It was held that a symbol stands for or represents something material or abstract; in order to be a religious symbol, there must be a visible representation to a thing or concept which is religious. It was further held that the use of "Om" on a flag would not symbolise religion, or anything religious. 24. Similarly, in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi Ajit Kumar Fulsinji and others, AIR 1965 SC 669, a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court was considering the provisions of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, with regard to appeal on the ground of religion and appeal to religious symbols. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that if for instance, the illiterate, the orthodox or the fanatical electors are told that their religion would be in danger or they will suffer miseries or calamities unless they cast their vote for a particular candidate, that would be quite clearly an appeal to the religious sentiments of the people. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that if for instance, the illiterate, the orthodox or the fanatical electors are told that their religion would be in danger or they will suffer miseries or calamities unless they cast their vote for a particular candidate, that would be quite clearly an appeal to the religious sentiments of the people. Similarly, if they are told that the wrath of the God or of a deity will visit them if they do not exercise their franchise in a particular way or if they are told that they will receive the blessings of God or a deity if they vote in a particular way, that would be an appeal to the religious sentiments. Similarly, if they are told to cast their vote for a particular candidate whose election symbol is associated with a particular religion just as the Cross is with Christianity, that will be using a religious symbol for obtaining votes. However, where as in the case of the Hindu religion, it is not possible to associate a particular symbol with religion, the use of a symbol even when it is associated with some deity, cannot without something more, be regarded as a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the 1951 Act. It was further held that for instance, a particular object or a plant, a bird, or an animal associated with a deity is used in such a way as to show that votes are being solicited in the name of that deity or as would indicate that the displeasure of that deity would be incurred if a voter does not react favourably to that appeal, it may be possible to say that this amounts to making an appeal in the name of religion. However, the symbol standing by itself cannot be regarded as an appeal in the name of religion. The Honble Constitution Bench also referred to the observations made in Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, AIR 1965 SC 141 (supra), where the question was as to whether upon a fair and reasonable construction, a poster published by or at the instance of an Akali candidate for election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. In that poster it was said that at this critical juncture it was the duty of the voters who were predominantly Sikhs to keep high the honour of the Panth, not to criticise the weakness of the leaders of the Panth and to defeat the opponents of the Panth at the general elections. In the said case, it was observed that the Akali Dal party was recognised as a political party for election purposes notwithstanding the fact that all of its members were only Sikhs. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that so long as law does not prohibit the formation of such parties and in fact recognises them for the purpose of election, it would be necessary to remember that an appeal made by candidates of such parties for votes may, if successful, lead to their election and, in an indirect way may conceivably be influenced by consideration of religion, race, caste, community or language. This infirmity cannot perhaps be avoided so long as parties are allowed to function and are recognised though their composition may be predominantly based on membership of particular communities or religions. Under those circumstances, it was held that in considering the question as to whether a particular appeal made by a candidate falls within the mischief of Section 123(3), the Court should not be astute to read into the words used in the appeal anything more than what can be attributed to them on its fair and reasonable construction. It was further held that the document must be read as a whole and its purport and effect determined in a fair, objective and reasonable manner. In reading such documents, it would be unrealistic to ignore the fact that the atmosphere is usually surcharged with partisan feelings and emotions and when the question about the effect of speeches delivered or pamphlets distributed at election meetings is argued in the cold atmosphere of a judicial chamber, some allowance must be made and the impugned speeches or pamphlets must be construed in that light. Agreeing with the aforesaid law laid down in Kultar Singhs case (supra), it was held by the Constitution Bench that election literature should neither be judged strictly nor taken literally and therefore, the courts ought not to read more in such literature than what appears on its face. 25. Agreeing with the aforesaid law laid down in Kultar Singhs case (supra), it was held by the Constitution Bench that election literature should neither be judged strictly nor taken literally and therefore, the courts ought not to read more in such literature than what appears on its face. 25. In Ramakant Mayekar v. Celine DSilva (Smt.), 1996(1) Supreme Court Cases 399, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that what is forbidden by law is an appeal by a candidate for votes on the ground of "his" religion or promotion etc. of hatred or enmity between groups of people and not the mere mention of religion. It was further held that there can be no doubt that mention made of any religion in the context of secularism or for criticising the anti-secular stance of any political party or candidate cannot amount to a corrupt practice under sub-section (3) or (3-A) of Section 123. 26. In Shri Suryakant Venkatrao Mahadik v. Smt. Saroj Sandesh Naik (Bhosale), JT 1995(8) SC 686, the allegations of corrupt practice were based on the appellants speech in para 12 of the election petition, according to which he was the officially sponsored candidate of Shiv Sena for Assembly elections and that the said political party viz. Shiv Sena had entered into an alliance with another party known as Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and that the said Shiv Sena and BJP had been contesting the elections on the plank of Hindutva and the Hindu religion and Shiv Sena had been openly canvassing and appealing to the voters in the name of Hindu religion. Furthermore, in the aforesaid public meeting the returned candidate and his party workers had been jointly propagating that the Shiv Sena party was for the Hindus and that if you are a Hindu you should vote for the returned candidate and the Shiv Sena to power. After examining these averments made in the election petition, it was found that the appeal was made at a religious place and during a religious gathering, obviously for greater effect. It was held that the returned candidate being himself a Hindu and invoking support for the Hindus and Hindu religion in a religious gathering of Hindus during his election campaign, the averment made was of a direct appeal to the voters by the returned candidate for votes on the ground of religion. It was held that the returned candidate being himself a Hindu and invoking support for the Hindus and Hindu religion in a religious gathering of Hindus during his election campaign, the averment made was of a direct appeal to the voters by the returned candidate for votes on the ground of religion. It was further held that the speech made by the appellant in a Mandir during the religious festival to the congregation of Hindu devotees at that time and place was clearly an appeal to the voters on the ground of his religion, which amounts to a corrupt practice under sub- section (3) of Section 123 of the 1951 Act and this finding alone was sufficient to sustain setting aside the appellants election on the ground of a corrupt practice. 27. Learned counsel for the election petitioner submitted before me that in the present case respondent No. 1 had clearly committed corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, inasmuch as he made appeal to the people to vote for him on the ground of religion and also made appeal to the religious symbols for the furtherance of the prospectus of his election and thereby prejudicially affecting the election of the election petitioner. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, the election petition filed by the petitioner could not be dismissed at this stage. It was submitted that the use of words "Bore Wale" alongwith "Sant Muni Mahesh Ji 108" and similarly the use of word "Gaushala Badhni Kalan Nanaksar Thath" and "Lamman Jattpura" alongwith name Karnail Singh, Mukh Sewadar, amounted to appeal to religious symbols, which was a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. 28. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the returned candidate submitted before me that these words like "Bore Wale, Badhni Kalan Nanaksar Thath and Lamman Jattpura" could not be considered as religious symbols and these were only the manner of describing the persons like Sant Mahesh Muni Ji, Karnail Singh Mukh Sewadar, Gaushala and Sant Balbir Singh were also known by the aforesaid names. It was submitted that neither there was any appeal by respondent No. 1 or anyone else on his behalf in the name of his religion nor there was any appeal to the religious symbols as required under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act and as such even if all the allegations of the petitioner are taken as correct at this stage, still it could not be said that the returned candidate had committed any corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. 29. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and perusing the record, in my opinion, it could not be said that the appeal made by respondent No. 1 on 1.2.2002, 3.2.2002, which was got published in the daily Jagbani on 5.2.2002 and the appeal made by respondent No. 1 and his father on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002, which was got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit on 12.2.2002, amounted to corrupt practice, as defined under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, even if all the allegations made by the election petitioner in the aforesaid paragraphs in this regard are taken as correct at this stage, keeping in view the provisions of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act and the law laid down in the various authorities, referred to above. 30. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the contention that even when the election petition is liable to be dismissed ultimately, it should be so dismissed only after recording evidence and not at the threshold is thoroughly misconceived and untenable. In Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that if the allegations contained in the election petition even assuming to be true and correct did not make out any case of corrupt practice, the pleadings would be unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious and it is always open to strike out the same and if after striking out the defective pleadings the court finds that no cause of action remains to be tried, it would reject the petition. It was further held that if preliminary objection is raised before the commencement of the trial, the court is duty bound to consider the same and it need not postpone the consideration for subsequent stage of the trial. It was further held that if preliminary objection is raised before the commencement of the trial, the court is duty bound to consider the same and it need not postpone the consideration for subsequent stage of the trial. In Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, 2001(8) Supreme Court Cases 233, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that it is the duty of the Court to examine the election petition irrespective of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not disclose a cause of action. It was further held that to enable a court to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and nothing else. 31. In D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman and others, JT 1999(2) SC 94, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that it was well settled that in all cases of preliminary objection, the test is to see whether any of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the petitioner if the averments made in the petition are proved to be true. It was further held that for the purpose of considering a preliminary objection, the averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and Court has to find out whether those averments disclose a cause of action or triable issue as such. The Court cannot probe into the facts on the basis of the controversy raised in the counter. Similarly, in H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and others, AIR 1999 SC 768, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that test in all cases of preliminary objection is to see whether any of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the petitioner if the averments made in the petition are proved to be true. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the maintainability of the petition has to be upheld. 32. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the abovementioned authorities, it would be clear that the election petition could be dismissed at the preliminary stage itself, in case it is found that no case is made out to interfere, even if the allegations made in the petition are taken to be true at this stage. Furthermore, the allegations made in the written statement are not to be considered at this stage and only the allegations made in the election petition are to be considered. Keeping in view the law laid down in the abovementioned authorities in this regard, I will consider as to whether from the allegations made in the election petition could it be said that the returned candidate had committed the corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. 33. As referred to above, allegations made by the petitioner in the election petition are that on 1.2.2002, respondent No. 1 appealed to the people particularly the followers of Sant Mahesh Muniji Bore Wale to vote in his favour on the basis of appeal made by the said religious leader using their respective religious symbols. Similarly, on 3.2.2002, respondent No. 1 had made similar appeal in the name of Sh. Karnail Singh, Mukh Sewadar, Gaushala Badhni, who is a religious leader and having vast following. It was further alleged that the appeals made on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 by respondent No. 1 in the name of Sant Muni Maheshji were later on got published at his instance in daily Jagbani on 5.2.2002 under the name of Sh. Karnail Singh, Mukh Sewadar, Gaushala Badhni, calling upon the people to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1, and this amounted to corrupt practice as defined under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, as appeal was made in the name of religion using religious symbols. It has also been alleged that respondent No. 1 and his father Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi had appealed to the public in several public meetings held on 8.2.2003 and 9.2.2003 to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and they should vote in accordance with the wishes of the said religious leaders under whose religion/symbols said people were followers. It was alleged that Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi had specifically named all the religious leaders including Sant Muni Mahesh Ji Bore Wale, Sant Balbir SIngh Lamman Jattpura, Sant Zora Singh Badhni Kalan, Nanaksar Thath, Sant Niranjan Singh Ji Vaid, Sant Avtar Singh, Badhni Kalan, Sant Bir Singh Madoke, Member SGPC, Sant Atma Singh Dhurkot, Member SGPC and Sant Bharpoor Singh, Barmi Wale and that he had called upon people to cast their votes in furtherance to the wishes of their respective leaders and to keep their symbols high. It was further alleged that the said appeal was got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit on 12.2.2002 and that the said appeal was issued by various religious leaders under their symbols to the public and particularly to their followers. It was further alleged that the words "Bore Wale, Badni Kalan, Nanaksar Thath and Lamman Jattpura" were symbols of aforesaid religious leaders. 34. In my opinion, even if the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner regarding the appeal in the name of religion and religious symbols are taken to be correct, at this stage, even then it could not be said that the returned candidate had committed the corrupt practice, as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. As referred to above, in paras 7 and 8 of the election petition, reference has been made to the appeal made by respondent No. 1 on 1.2.2002, 3.2.2002 and in para 9 of the petition, it has been alleged that the appeal made on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 by respondent No. 1 was later on got published at his instance in the daily Jagbani dated 5.2.2002, translated copy of which is Annexure P1/T. In the absence of exact words used by respondent No. 1 on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002, it can be taken that the words mentioned in the newspaper publication dated 5.2.2002 were the words used in the appeal made by respondent No. 1, on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2003, keeping in view that in para 9 of the petition, it has been alleged that the appeal made on 1.2.2002 and 3.2.2002 by respondent No. 1 was later on got published at his instance in the daily Jagbani dated 5.2.2003. As per appeal published in daily Jagbani, translated copy of which is Annexure P1/T, appeal had been made to intellectual voters of Raikot Assembly Constituency to vote and elect respondent No. 1, Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, who was a candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal-BJP-BSP and was the son of former President, Shiromai Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, namely Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, for all round development of the area and spearheading the religious works. This appeal was issued in the name of Karnail Singh, Head Sewadar, Gaushala, Badhni etc. Similarly, in para 11 of the petition, it was alleged that respondent No. 1 and his father Jathedar Jagdev Singhg Talwandi had made appeal in several public meetings held on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002 that people should cast their votes in accordance with the wishes of various religious leaders under whose religion/symbols said people were followers and that names of various religious leaders were mentioned in those appeals made by respondent No. 1 and his father Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi. It was further alleged that thereafter the said appeal was got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit dated 12.2.2002, translated copy of which is Annexure P2/T. In the absence of exact words used by respondent No. 1 and his father in the name of religious leaders, it could be said that the newspaper publication dated 12.2.2002 contained the appeal in this regard. As per the said newspaper publication dated 12.2.2002, translated copy Annexure P2/T, appeal was made to the intellectual voters of Raikot Constituency to cast their precious vote and elect Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, educated, honest guardian of rights and truth and people friendly candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), BJP-BSP. The said appeal made in the aforesaid newspaper dated 12.2.2002 was issued in the name of Sant Mahesh Muniji Bore Wale, Sant Balbir Singh Lamman Jattpura etc. and was having the photographs of Sardar Parkash Singh Badal, the then Chief Minister, Punjab, Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, former President, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and the returned candidate namely Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, besides his election symbol of Scales. 35. and was having the photographs of Sardar Parkash Singh Badal, the then Chief Minister, Punjab, Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, former President, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and the returned candidate namely Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, besides his election symbol of Scales. 35. In my opinion, from the appeal made by respondent No. 1 and his father on 1.2.2002, 3.2.2002, 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002 and publication thereof in the newspapers on 5.2.2002 and 12.2.2002, it could not be said that respondent No. 1 and/or his agent or any other person with his consent had made any appeal to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of "his religion", race, caste, community, language or use thereof nor could it be said that they had made appeal to the religious symbols for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of the petitioner, as required under sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the 1951 Act. Nothing has come on record to show that any appeal was made on the ground of "his religion, as required by law in view of the interpretation of the word "his" by the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and others, AIR 1996 SC 1113 (supra) and Ramakant Mayekar v. Celine DSilva (Smt.), 1996(1) SCC 399 (supra). Similarly, there is nothing on the record to show that respondent No. 1 or his father had made appeal to religious symbols for the furtherance of prospectus of respondent No. 1 or for prejudicially affecting the election of the petitioner. In the present case the names of various religious leaders alongwith their extended names, with which they are known, have been used in the appeals published in the two newspapers, referred to above. In my opinion, it could not be said that the mention of their names alongwith their extended names would amount to appeal to religious symbols, which may amount to corrupt practice under sub- section (3) of Section 123 of the 1951 Act. Merely because the words "religious" and "symbol" have been separately defined in various English dictionaries, in my opinion, it could not be said that the use of extended names of the religious leaders would amount to religious symbols. Merely because the words "religious" and "symbol" have been separately defined in various English dictionaries, in my opinion, it could not be said that the use of extended names of the religious leaders would amount to religious symbols. In my opinion, the names including extended names of the religious leaders were mentioned in the appeals which were allegedly made by respondent No. 1 and his father in the two newspapers. However, it could not be said that this amounted to appeal to the religious symbols, as submitted before me by the learned counsel for the election petitioner. The various authorities of the Honble Supreme Court, referred to above, would clearly show that various appeals made by respondent No. 1 and his father would not infringe the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the 1951 Act, and on the basis thereof, it could not be said that respondent No. 1 had committed the corrupt practice of making appeal on the ground of his religion etc. or had made appeal to religious symbols for the furtherance of the prospects of his election and for prejudicially affecting the election of the petitioner. 36. In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, it could not be said that paras 7 to 15 of the election petition contained any allegation which may amount to corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. Under these circumstances, paras 7 to 15 of the election petition being vague would not constitute corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act and as such paras 7 to 15 being vague and not constituting any corrupt practice were liable to be struck off from the pleadings. The allegations made in paras 16 to 19, however, shall be considered while deciding issue No. 4. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner. Issue No. 4 : 37. The allegations made in paras 16 to 19, however, shall be considered while deciding issue No. 4. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner. Issue No. 4 : 37. In the election petition, the petitioner had challenged the elections held on 13.2.2002, by making allegations in paras 16 to 19 of the election petition to the effect that the electoral rolls are prepared as prescribed under Section 21 of the 1950 Act and that complete procedure has been set out therein which also lays down the procedure for revision of electoral rolls and under sub-section (2) electoral roll is to be revised before each general elections and that the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 1960 Rules) have been framed and Rules 22 of the said Rules provides for final publication of the roll and Rule 25 provides for revision of rolls. It was further alleged that elections of Raikot Assembly Constituency were held on the basis of basic electoral roll of 1999 alongwith which two supplementary rolls viz. supplementary voters list of 2001 and 2002 were tagged with it; that the holding of the elections on the basis of this electoral roll having two supplementary voters list tagged with it, is not sustainable as the revision of rolls in the year 2001 was of intensive nature and as such under the provisions of Rule 25(2) of the 1960 Rules, a fresh electoral roll had to be published meaning thereby that after the amendments made in the electoral roll of 1999 during the revision of 2001, a fresh electoral roll was to be published incorporating all the amendments and on such publication, the electoral roll of 1999 would cease to operate; that the present election has been held in utter violation of the provisions of 1950 Act and the Rules framed thereunder and as such the same is null and void and accordingly fresh elections be directed to be held. 38. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1, a preliminary objection was raised to the effect that contents of paras 16 to 19 of the election petition do not show any cause of action as finality of electoral rolls cannot be challenged in an election petition. 38. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1, a preliminary objection was raised to the effect that contents of paras 16 to 19 of the election petition do not show any cause of action as finality of electoral rolls cannot be challenged in an election petition. It was further alleged that the irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls (if any, though not admitted) cannot be challenged in the election petition and that there is no ground provided under Section 100 of the 1951 Act for challenging the electoral roll and as such paras 16 to 19 which do not disclose any cause of action were liable to be struck off from the pleadings. 39. It was on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties that this issue i.e. issue No. 4 was framed by this Court to the effect as to whether the finality of electoral roll could not be challenged in the election petition and as such paras 16 to 19 of the election petition do not disclose any cause of action. As referred to above, this issue i.e. issue No. 4 was ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue vide order dated 29.10.2002. 40. It has been submitted before me by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act, the election of a candidate could be declared as void if this court is of the opinion that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected "by any non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act". It has been submitted that if there is any defect in the electoral roll (on the basis of which elections were held), said defect may be on account of non-compliance of the provisions of 1950 Act or the rules framed thereunder and not the non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution or of 1951 Act or of any rules or orders made under the 1951 Act. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, holding of election on the basis of alleged defective electoral roll could not be challenged by way of election petition. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, holding of election on the basis of alleged defective electoral roll could not be challenged by way of election petition. It was further submitted that there was no lack of jurisdiction in holding the elections on the basis of electoral rolls of 1999 as amended in 2001 and 2002 by way of supplementary rolls and as such the alleged violations of the provisions of the 1950 Act or 1960 Rules could not be a ground to challenge the election of respondent No. 1. It was further submitted that in any case it was required to be pleaded that the said alleged defect in the electoral roll had materially affected the result of the returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1. It was further submitted that no election petition beyond the provisions of Section 100 of the 1951 Act was maintainable. Reliance was placed on Inderjit Barua and others etc.etc. v. Election Commission of India, AIR 1984 SC 1912, Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh and others, AIR 1970 SC 340, Nripendra Bahadur Singh v. Jai Ram Verma and others, AIR 1977 SC 1992 and Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav, AIR 2000 SC 3000. 41. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner submitted before me that non-compliance of the provisions of 1950 Act and the rules framed thereunder could also be made the basis for challenging the election, inasmuch as provisions of 1950 Act have to be read alongwith provisions of 1951 Act. It was further submitted that the validity of the electoral rolls could be challenged by way of election petition and it could not be said that paras 16 to 19 of the election petition do not disclose any cause of action. Reliance as placed on Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha and others, AIR 1976 SC 2573; Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others, 2000(8) SCC 216; and Baidyanath Panjira v. Sita Ram Mahto and others, AIR 1970 SC 314. 42. Reliance as placed on Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha and others, AIR 1976 SC 2573; Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others, 2000(8) SCC 216; and Baidyanath Panjira v. Sita Ram Mahto and others, AIR 1970 SC 314. 42. In Inderjit Baruas case (supra), (a Constitutional Bench of the Honble Supreme Court consisting of 5 Judges), the principal ground on which the validity of the elections had been challenged was that the electoral rolls were not revised before the elections in contravention of Section 21(2) of the 1950 Act and the elections were held on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979. After considering the various provisions of the Constitution and the 1950 Act and the 1951 Act, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court as under :- "3. We are of the view that once the final electoral rolls are published and elections are held on the basis of such electoral rolls, it is not open to any one to challenge the election from any constituency or constituencies on the ground that the electoral rolls were defective. That is not a ground available for challenging an election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The finality of the electoral rolls cannot be assailed in a proceeding on the basis of such electoral rolls vide Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh, (1970) 1 SCR 845 : (AIR 1970 SC 340). Article 329(b) in our opinion clearly bars any writ petition challenging the impugned elections on the ground that the electoral rolls of 1979 on the basis of which the impugned elections were held were invalid." As referred to above, reliance was placed on Kabul Singhs case (supra). In Kabul Singhs case (supra), after referring to the provisions of the 1950 Act, it was held by the Honble Supreme as under :- "It is clear from those provisions that entries found in the electoral rolls are final and they are not open to challenge either before a Civil Court or a Tribunal which considers the validity of any election". 43. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in B.M. Ramaswamy v. B.M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1963 SC 458. 43. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in B.M. Ramaswamy v. B.M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1963 SC 458. Similarly in Nripendra Bahadur Singhs case (supra), after considering the provisions of the 1950 Act, the 1951 Act and the law laid down in various authorities, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the finality of the electoral rolls cannot be challenged in an election petition even if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of electoral rolls. It was further held that after the deadline the electoral rolls of a constituency cannot be interfered with and no one can go beyond the entries except for considering disqualification under Section 16 of the 1950 Act. It was further held that the election could be set aside only on the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of the 1951 Act. In the reported case, reliance was placed upon Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the 1951 Act for invalidating the election on the ground of reception of void votes. Reference was made to the law laid down in Kabul Singhs case (supra) and B.M. Ramaswamys case (supra). 44. In Shyamdeo Pd. Singhs case (supra), it was held by a three-Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court that inclusion of person or persons in the electoral roll by an authority empowered in law to prepare the electoral rolls cannot be a ground for setting aside the election of a returned candidate under Section (iii) or (iv) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the 1951 Act. It was further held that a person enrolled in the electoral list by an authority empowered by law to prepare an electoral roll or to include the name therein, is entitled to cast a vote unless disqualified and that the person enrolled in the electoral roll cannot be excluded from exercising his right to cast vote on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility requirement. In Hari Prasad Mulshankar Trivedi v. V.B. Raju and others, AIR 1973 SC 2602, it was held by a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court that the intention of the Parliament to oust the jurisdiction of the Court trying an election petition to go into that question is manifest from the scheme of the 1950 Act and the 1951 Act and specially Section 30 of 1950 Act, which expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court to try that question. Reliance was placed on B.M. Ramaswamys case (supra). Reliance was also placed on Kabul Singhs case (supra). 45. From a perusal of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above mentioned authorities, in my opinion, the defect, if any, in the electoral rolls could not be made the basis for challenging the election inasmuch as the election could be challenged only under Section 100 of the 1951 Act and under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act, the election of a returned candidate could be declared as void only if this Court is of the opinion that the result of the election insofar as it concerns as returned candidate has been materially affected by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the 1951 Act or any rules or orders made under the said 1951 Act. The defect, if any, in the preparation of the electoral roll may be non-compliance of the provisions of the 1950 Act or the rules framed thereunder. However, that could not be made the basis for declaring the election to be void. The defect, if any, in the preparation of the electoral roll may be non-compliance of the provisions of the 1950 Act or the rules framed thereunder. However, that could not be made the basis for declaring the election to be void. Merely because under Section 2(1)(a) of the 1951 Act, it is specified that the various expressions defined in 1950 Act, but not defined in the 1951 Act shall have the same meaning as in that Act or that under Section 2(1)(bb) of the 1951 Act, it is mentioned that the Chief Electoral Officer would mean the officer appointed under the 1950 Act or that under Section 2(1)(e) of the 1951 Act, elector had been defined who was not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in the 1950 Act, in my opinion, would not be enough to hold that any non-compliance of the provisions of the 1950 Act or the rules framed thereunder would mean the non-compliance with the provisions of the 1951 Act or the rules framed thereunder, as required under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act. 46. Furthermore, under Section 21(1) of the 1950 Act, it is provided that the electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication. Under Section 21(2) of the 1950 Act, it is provided that the said electoral roll unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission, shall be revised, in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date before each general election to the house of people or to the legislative assembly and shall be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by the Election Commission. It is further provided under Section 21(2) of the 1950 Act that if the electoral roll is not revised as aforesaid, the validity or continued operation of the said electoral roll shall not thereby be affected. Under Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act, it is provided that Election Commission, may at any time, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency, provided that the electoral roll for the constituency, as in force at the time of the issue of any such direction, shall continue to be in force until the completion of the special revision. Thus from a perusal of the Section 21 of the 1950 Act, it would be clear that electoral roll for each constituency has to be prepared by reference to the qualifying date and the electoral roll has to be revised before each general election. However, it is specifically provided that if the electoral roll is not revised as aforesaid, the validity or continued operation of the said electoral roll shall not thereby be affected. 47. Under Rule 25 of the 1960 Rules, it is provided that the electoral roll for every constituency shall be revised under Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the 1950 Act either intensively or summarily or partly intensively and partly summarily as the Election Commission may direct. It is further provided that where the electoral roll or any part thereof is to be revised intensively in any year, it shall be prepared afresh. In the present case as per the allegations made by the election petitioner, instead of preparing the electoral roll afresh while intensively revising the existing electoral roll, the elections were held on the basis of 1999 electoral roll alongwith two supplementary rolls viz. supplementary voters list of 2001 and 2002, which were tagged with it, even though the revision of electoral rolls in the year 2001 was of intensive nature and as such fresh electoral roll was required to be published. In this manner, the only irregularity which has been pointed out by the election petitioner in the election petition is that even though intensive revision of electoral rolls had taken place in the year 2001 yet fresh electoral roll had not been prepared in the year 2001 and the elections were also held on the basis of electoral roll of 1999 alongwith which two supplementary electoral rolls of the years 2001 and 2002 were tagged. In my opinion, this irregularity with regard to the non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 25 of the 1960 rules could not be made a ground for declaring the election of respondent No. 1 to be void, especially when the non-compliance was of the provisions of the 1950 Act and the rules framed thereunder i.e. 1960 rules and the non-compliance of the said Act and the said rules did not fall within the purviews of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act. 48. 48. Furthermore, for getting the election of the returned candidate to be declared as void, the election petitioner was also required to allege that on account of non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution or of the 1951 Act or any rules or orders made thereunder, "the result of the election, so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected", as required under Section 100(1)(d) of the 1951 Act. In the present case, in paras 16 to 19 of the election petition, where non-preparation of the electoral rolls has been taken as a ground for declaring the election of the respondent No. 1 as void, no allegation, whatsoever has been made that due to non-preparation of a fresh electoral roll, the result of the election so far as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected. In the absence of any such allegation in the election petition, in my opinion, non- compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the 1951 Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder could not be made the basis for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void. 49. In L.R. Shivaramagowda etc. v. T.M. Chandrashekar etc., AIR 1999 SC 252, relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court, as under :- "10. That apart, it is rightly pointed out by the appellants counsel that in order to declare an election to be void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), it is absolutely necessary for the election petitioner to plead that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate had been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of the Rules. We have already extracted paragraph 39 of the Election Petition which is the only relevant paragraph. One will search in vain for an averment in that paragraph that the appellant had spent for the election an amount exceeding the prescribed limit or that the result of the election was materially affected by the failure of the appellant to give true and correct accounts of expenditure. In the absence of either averment it was not open to the appellant to adduce evidence to that effect. In the absence of either averment it was not open to the appellant to adduce evidence to that effect. It cannot be denied that the two matters referred to above are material facts which ought to find a place in an election petition if the election is sought to be set aside on the basis of such facts". In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in this authority, it would be clear that in order to declare an election to be void, under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act, it is absolutely necessary for the election petitioner to plead that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate had been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the said Act or the rules framed thereunder. In the present case, as referred to above, while arguing non- compliance with the provisions of the 1950 Act and the rules framed thereunder as a ground for holding fresh elections, as contained in paras 16 to 19 of the election petition, not a word had been alleged by the election petitioner that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate had been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the said Act or the rules framed thereunder. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the election petitioner cannot be allowed to get the election of the returned candidate to be declared void and/or to seek fresh elections on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the 1950 Act and 1960 Rules. 50. The authority AIR 1976 SC 2573 (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the election petitioner, in my opinion, would have no application on the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the reported case on March 29, 1972, the Election Commission had issued a notification calling upon the Muzaffarpur Local Authorities Constituency (which included Notified Area Committee of Dumra) to elect one member of the Bihar Legislative Council. As per the election programme notified by the Election Commission, last date for filing nomination was April 5, 1972 and the poll was to be held on April 30 and the result of the election was declared on May 1, 1972, in which respondent No. 1 secured the highest number of votes. As per the election programme notified by the Election Commission, last date for filing nomination was April 5, 1972 and the poll was to be held on April 30 and the result of the election was declared on May 1, 1972, in which respondent No. 1 secured the highest number of votes. The appellant who was a voter filed election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1, inter alia on the ground that 40 voters of Dumra Notified Committee were illegally prevented from exercising their franchise which had materially affected the result of the election. It was found that by notification dated May 5, 1971, the Government of Bihar had notified 40 persons to be the members or commissioners of Dumra Notified Area Committee. All of them were duly enrolled as voters in the electoral roll of the Muzaffarpur Local Authorities Constituency. On April 4, 1972, the State Government issued notification cancelling the abovesaid notification dated May 5, 1971. By another notification of even date viz. April 4, 1972, the State Government nominated 40 other persons named therein as members of Dumra Notified Area Committee. Immediately thereafter all the said members of Dumra Notified Area Committee who ceased to be members by reason of these notifications filed writ petition before the Patna High Court, challenging the validity of the notifications. A rule was issued in that writ petition on April 14, 1972 and by an interim order the operation of the notification dated April 14, 1972 by which the earlier notification of May 5, 1971, was cancelled was stayed till the disposal of the writ petition. After the aforesaid order was passed by the High Court, a petition was moved before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur asking that the names of the 40 members which were removed from the electoral roll pursuant to the notification dated April 4, 1972 issued by the State Government should be re-incorporated therein. After the aforesaid order was passed by the High Court, a petition was moved before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur asking that the names of the 40 members which were removed from the electoral roll pursuant to the notification dated April 4, 1972 issued by the State Government should be re-incorporated therein. The District Magistrate who was functioning as Ex-officio District Election Officer and Returning Officer sent teleprinter message on April 21, 1972 to the Chief Electoral Officer, Patna, stating that since the last date for filing the nomination was long since past, the names of the old members, who were already removed from the electoral roll could not be re-incorporated therein, but that it would be contempt of the High Court if the elections were to be held on the basis of the amended roll. As the High Court has stayed the operation of the notification issued by the State Government on April 4, 1972, cancelling the earlier notification dated May 5, 1971, by the said telex message, District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer and Returning officer asked the Chief Electoral Officer to seek instructions from the Election Commission of India. Thereupon the Election Commission opined that since the old members could not vote as their names were not on the electoral roll and since the new members also could not vote because of the stay order issued by the High Court, the polling station at Dumra Notified Area Committee should be withdrawn and cancelled. In pursuance therefore, neither the old 40 members whose names were removed from the electoral roll nor the new 40 members whose names were included therein could cast their votes in the election held on April 30. It was on this background that the election petitioner raised the point that the new 40 members were illegally prevented from exercising their franchise and that such prevention had materially affected and result of the election. 51. It was on the aforesaid facts that it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that the question which had arisen for consideration in the said case was not as to whether any or more of the 40 members whose names were included were entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, on the other hand the question was that assuming that they were so notified were their names entered in the roll within the time limited by law. Secondly, the legality of the action taken by the Electoral Registration Officer in entering the new names in the roll "after the expiry of the last date for making nominations", was in issue before the High Court in the election petition itself filed by the appellant. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that Section 30(b) of the 1950 Act, cannot affect the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with an election petition to set aside an election on the grounds mentioned in Section 100(1) of the 1951 Act, one of which was that the result of the election was materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote. It was held that there was a clear distinction between a challenge to the right of a voter to be registered in an electoral roll and the jurisdiction of the authority appointed under the 1950 Act to enter a name in the electoral rolls. It was held that the said jurisdiction perforce has to be exercised consistently with the provisions of the law governing the elections and in case there is failure to do so, the action of the officer would be open to challenge on the ground of want of jurisdiction and if the electoral roll is amended after the time limit as set down in Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act, the amendment would be without jurisdiction conferring no right to vote on the persons whose names were thus included in the roll. It was held that when there is breach of Section 23(3), the question is not of an irregular exercise of power but of lack of power itself. It was further held that on the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Election Commission of India was within its rights in withdrawing the polling booth of Dumra Committee office in order that new persons may not vote at the election. Kabul Singhs case (supra) and B.M. Ramaswamys case (supra) were considered by the Honble Supreme Court in the abovementioned authority and it was held that the law laid down in the said authorities would have no application to the facts of this case. 52. Kabul Singhs case (supra) and B.M. Ramaswamys case (supra) were considered by the Honble Supreme Court in the abovementioned authority and it was held that the law laid down in the said authorities would have no application to the facts of this case. 52. The law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the abovementioned authority in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case and it could not be held that the non-compliance with the provisions of the 1950 Act and 1960 Rules could be made a ground for challenging the election by way of election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act. 53. The authority (2000) 8 SCC 216 (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the election petitioner, in my opinion, would also be of no help to the election petitioner. In the said authority, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that Section 100(1)(d)(iv) is a "residual catch all clause" and that whenever there is non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or 1951 Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, if not specifically covered by another preceding clause or sub-clause of Section 100, it shall be covered under sub-clause (iv). It was further held that the result of the election insofar as it concerned a returned candidate shall be set aside for any such non-compliance as the abovesaid subject to such non-compliance, also satisfying the requirement of the result of the election having been shown to have been materially affected, insofar as returned candidate is concerned. It was further held that the conclusions which inevitably follow are that in the field of election jurisprudence, ignore such things as do not materially affect the result of the election unless the requirement of satisfying the test of material effect has been dispensed with by the law. In my opinion, the law laid down in the said authority would be of no help to the election petitioner. 54. The authority Baidyanath Panjira v. Sita Ram Mahto and others, AIR 1970 SC 314, relied upon by the learned counsel for the election petitioner, in my opinion, would also have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case, the principal question that arose before the Honble Supreme Court was as to the scope of Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act. In the reported case, the principal question that arose before the Honble Supreme Court was as to the scope of Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act. The matter before the Honble Supreme Court was in respect of improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void, as provided under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the 1951 Act. However, as referred to above, facts of the present case are entirely different. In the present case, the election petitioner has challenged the election of returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the 1950 Act and 1960 rules, which have been framed under the provisions of the 1950 Act, by bringing the case within the purview of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act. 55. In view of the detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the finality of the electoral roll could not be challenged by way of election petition. The facts alleged by the election petitioner in paras 16 to 19 of the election petition, even if accepted as correct, do not disclose any cause of action for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1 by way of present election petition. Accordingly, I decide this issue in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner. Relief In view of my findings on issue Nos. 3 and 4, the present election petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed, without costs. Petition dismissed.